Could someone help to see if I am interpreting the population of the VALUE_AS_CONCEPT _ID in the Measurement table correctly when working with concepts that have ‘map to’ and ‘map to value’ relationships?
As an example, if there was source data containing:
‘O/E-rate of respiration normal’
measurement_source_value: 2351.00
measurement_source_concept_id: 45471864
Looking at this concept in Athena/the concept_relationship table it:
‘Maps to’ – Respiratory rate – 4313591 – Measurement Domain
‘Map to value’ – Normal – 4069590 – Spec Disease Status Domain
This then gets inserted into the Measurement table as:
measurement_source_value = 2351.00
measurement_source_concept_id = 45471864
measurement_concept_id = 4313591
value_as_concept_id = 4069590
There is a data quality query which looks for, ‘The number and percent of records that have a value in the VALUE_AS_CONCEPT_ID field in the MEASUREMENT table that do not conform to the MEAS VALUE domain. (Threshold=0%).’ The CDM states: the categorical value should be mapped to a standard concept in the ‘Meas Value’ domain and put in the VALUE_AS_CONCEPT_ID field. This is also the destination for the ‘Maps to value’ relationship.
As the ‘Maps to value’ concept ID – 4069590 – Normal – sits in the Spec Disease Status Domain so would fail this query/CDM rules.
Is this a vocab error or am I interpreting something incorrectly?
Other similar examples:
OMOP Concept ID:
45487435
45471864
45490706
45424076
45495073
Thanks,
Alex